Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012–13 Rangers F.C. season


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. postdlf (talk) 19:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

2012–13 Rangers F.C. season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable season for phoenix club in fourth tier non-professional football league. No coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE. Per consensus here and here, amongst many others, such articles fail WP:NSEASONS. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The scale of the media coverage covering rangers first season post-drop was staggering. Please, no more of these attempts to characterise as 'non-notable' one of the biggest sports stories of recent years. I'm an Englishman who doesnt even LIKE football but I know this is notable! Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Rangers are not a phoenix club and there is one thing for sure this article and any other about the club meets WP:GNG. Rangers don't play in fourth tier they play in the third. Suggest user is trying to make a point rather than this being a valid nomination, her views re the club have been made very clear in discussions previously and her view that Rangers are a pheonix club is not the consensus view here on Wikipedia nor the general view of sources in the media. Blethering  Scot  21:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A very quick google search shows plenty of additional sources to prove article would meet WP:GNG. So not only is nominator trying to make a disruptive point they have not carried out WP:BEFORE. Blethering  Scot  22:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable article with many references. ///Euro Car GT   • talk  22:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't believe that this is a real nomination, but even if it is, the article easily passes WP:GNG. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  22:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - not the first time the nominator has ignored the Wikipedia user consensus on the status of Rangers F.C. The continual mention of 'phoenix club' by Clavdia chauchat is unsourced, patent nonsense. All 42 senior teams in Scottish football in season 2012-13 have a season article, see: Template:2012–13 in Scottish football. Cheers, Vanguard  Scot  23:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Week Keep would rather see an article on the whole league season as this has the appearance of a Excessive listings of statistics especially the Squad information and Squad statistics sections, those sections need to be sourced and the a WP:RS provide for them flags or they fail WP:BLP and must be removed.  LGA talk  edits   04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Several issues with this nomination, primarily the fundamental logical fallacy that "phoenix club = GNG failure" - that needs a lot more substantiation that the nom has provided. Secondly, although, along with a large number of the other league seasons noted in the template link above, techinally this seem a clear WP:NSEASONS failure due to not being a club in a "top professional league", there does appear to be a degree of consensus established that all Scottish teams are notable enough for season articles. Personally, i would disagree, there is little more than WP:ROUTINE coverage and seemingly clear contraventions of WP:NOT in a large number of them, which arguably need to be dealt with; but the place for that would be at WT:FOOTY to establish a consensus for Scottish football teams, as is being done here for English teams, not through a random AfD. Fenix down (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's no doubt that Rangers' first season after the change of status is notable. It received huge coverage, considerably more than the largely domestic routine coverage it's getting so far this season in the higher division now the novelty's worn off. What would be nice is if this article used some of it to talk about the season. There are pages and pages and pages of tables, much duplication of information, three match report links for each match, a totally insane number of MoS-violating flags, and eight (8) lines of prose. That's a touch unbalanced... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - has received sufficient coverage. GiantSnowman 12:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this subject passes the general notability guideline even if we only took Norwegian sources into consideration . But LGA and Struway has some good points - the excessive listing of statistics should be trimmed and more prose should be added, but that could be discussed on the talk-page. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.